I agree with Eleanor. All speculative and a good part of it is completely inaccurate or just flat wrong. I'm not sure how it got past peer review.

Examples: Incorrectly defines NSC"...elimination of grass hay from the diets seems to be the most important factor in the case of preventing risk of pasture-associated laminitis." (I'm sure they meant to say "grass" instead of "grass hay," but this is so fundamentally important, how could it have possibly been accepted?)Sloppy writing, like "simply sugars" vs. "Simple sugars" should have been caught by the author, the reviewer and the journal editorial staff.

In general, the authors cite a number of published works (with limited understanding) to serve as a platform to propose Algae as a component of the equine diet and to inject mesenchymal because... who knows? Fraught with errors, poorly organized random thoughts with no supporting data - I can't come up with anything positive to say about it.--

Verify Delete

Are you sure you wish to delete this message from the message archives of main@ECIR.groups.io? This cannot be undone.

Verify Repost

Are you sure you wish to repost this message?

Report Message

Reason

Report to Moderators
I think this message isn't appropriate for our Group. The Group moderators are responsible for maintaining their community and can address these issues.
Report to Groups.io Support
I think this violates the Terms of Service. This includes: harm to minors, violence or threats, harassment or privacy invasion, impersonation or misrepresentation, fraud or phishing.